Many company executives now regret their initial return-to-office plans, as 80% say they would have approached it differently if they understood employee preferences. While some firms are requiring more in-office time, citing collaboration needs, others are scaling back requirements due to retention issues. Successful companies like EY are listening to employees, addressing concerns over childcare and commuting, and seeing office attendance rise as a result. However, full office occupancy remains below pre-pandemic levels as hybrid work grows in popularity. It will take time for companies to settle on arrangements that satisfy both employees and management.
The companies that continue to try to force RTO will just alienate most millennials and zoomers. Good luck finding a wide enough group of people to fill those jobs you supposedly need filled. Most workers hate RTO, no matter how much BS, posturing, and gaslighting you do corporate, you’re not going to win this one.
Got a friend who was forced to RTO
…except literally every single person they work with is at a different branch. He’s doing the exact same things as he was at home, but it forced into the office. Fucking ridiculous doesn’t even begin to cover it
@Alto @trashhalo @zerkrazus i know its bonkers! im the last one on my team who has dug my heels in and refused to RTO. my tasks involve working with a sister team based in Poland (im USA based) we have most of our infrastructure in cloud and whats not is located in data centers across the country from me. my work 100% online! seems to me if my employer is “upside down " in their office/buildings/mortgage” is NOT my problem!
This is why I’m glad my IT dept isn’t pushing for RTO. Both our data centers are out of state rental spaces, so even in the office all our work is remote.
We are still teleworking full time, and will be at least until next spring, because they are renovating our building - they actually had us come in, clean out our offices and cubicles, and take our stuff home, so we literally have no desk to go to right now (if the need arises we can borrow a desk at another facility, but that space is extremely limited).
Part of the renovation is shrinking our footprint. We won’t be able to all go in at once; there won’t be enough space. So, when (if?) we go back in, 99% of the meetings are going to be us at whatever cubicle we were assigned that day, in teleconferences. Something we could do just as well at home. What’s the point in making people drive in just to do that?
There is a remote work policy being developed and reviewed, and hopefully that will allow me to continue working from home indefinitely.
All of that said, I went to an in-person brainstorming/long term planning meeting for a club I’m in, and THAT worked extremely well in person. We wouldn’t have been nearly as productive having it via Zoom, plus I could sit at meals and ask my fellow club leaders how they were dealing with this issue or that issue. So, I will admit that some things are better in person. But those types of meetings are in the minority - once or twice a year.
A whopping 80% of bosses regret their initial return-to-office decisions and say they would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of what their employees wanted
In other words, 80% of executives / bosses are completely incapable of listening to their employees and are now shocked that things aren’t working out, when they were undoubtedly explicitly told this wouldn’t go the way they think it will.
Ah well, time to blame the plebs, cut their pay and benefits, and give the execs a raise so they can confidently execute a new disaster.
No, they knew exactly what employees wanted. They just didn’t expect them to actually leave over it.
Yeah could be that they figured the plebs would just take it
I don’t really know what to make of this article.
- Bosses != executives / people in charge of making return to work decisions. Is there remorse from the people who were actually responsible for the return to work decision-making? or is it middle management who didn’t really want to come back either expressing their lack of satisfaction how “corporate” executed?
- If it really is an ineffective policy It’s never too late to admit your mistake and pivot. If you aren’t doing that, then what is this besides lip service?
I don’t know if this is really the case but it comes across a little as “ah shucks sorry we didn’t do so great with all that… oh well too late now, bygones and whatnot, get back to work.” You aren’t absolved lol every day the policy continues its an endorsement that its what you continue to want
It’s so delicious to see this after so many months of endless RTO propaganda
Honestly, I’m so sick and tired of seeing pieces on how WFH affects productivity and scare journalism about employees slacking off during remote work. I hate that the discussion revolves around productivity metrics and not the fucking human who is expected to do ever more with less for the sake of ‘making number go up.’ As if that’s the way this is supposed to be, working 60 hours a week just to barely get by so Bezos can have his five-hundred-million dollar yacht that’s so big they have to dismantle a bridge so it can pass. Like that’s not a hint that maybe people shouldn’t have that much wealth to throw at a floating palace.
Maybe it’s a good thing the Earth’s heating up. Fever kills viruses.
I might have misunderstood what you’re trying to imply, but unfortunately the bulk of people going to be displaced and killed by this “fever” are not the ones causing it.
I believe the implication is that humanity does not deserve to continue on.
I hope not, because I’d say that’s pretty unfair to all the cultures that understand that humans are just another part of the ecosystem around them.
I hope it’s not true too.
I don’t know what is deserved, but I’m pretty sure that there’s a lot of pain to come. There are a lot of people who won’t survive.
Makes me sad.
Unfortunately climate change really doesn’t care about fairness. It just reacts to external inputs and then affects everyone, regardless of how much or little they have contributed to it.
Using the unused office will not “recoup” any costs, the money’s gone. You’re just paying for heat lights and AC in addition to increasing employee turnover, especially on the ones with easily markettable skills - often those you would most struggle to replace
Not an accountant, but maybe they have expense them differently or across a different time frame depending on utilization.
The execs at my company continues to say that we’re an office based company, citing collaboration and social reasons. However, I have not heard of a single person below VP level share this opinion.
Luckily, many of us are “field personnel”, and mostly work either in the field or at home. Mandating that we work from the office would mean that we’re “office personnel”, who cannot be required to do field work. I love how corporate definitions make it easier to defend against corporate wank.
While I completely agree with you, they have better lawyers and deeper pockets, so don’t be surprised if they somehow have it both ways.
deleted by creator
